MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093508028 · doi:10.1115/ht2003-47237

Numerical Investigation of Oxygen-Enriched Pulverized Coal Combustion

2003· article· en· W2093508028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chaouki Ghenaï, Cheng-Xian Lin, M. A. Ebadian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCoal Properties and Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlue gasCombustionPulverized coal-fired boilerCoalLimiting oxygen concentrationBituminous coalCoal combustion productsOxygenNOxWaste managementMass transferExhaust gasChemistryFraction (chemistry)Environmental scienceEngineeringChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents calculations of oxygen-enriched coal combustion. Enriching combustion air with oxygen is considered one of the most effective methods to improve thermal efficiency, reduce pollutant emissions such as NOx, and facilitate capture of CO2 pollutant from flue gas. In addition to solving transport equations for the continuous phase (gas), a discrete second phase (spherical particles) is simulated in the Lagrangian frame of reference. Reaction is modeled by a two-mixture fractions/PDF approach. Discrete phase modeling is used for the prediction of discrete phase trajectory and heat and mass transfer to and from particles. The coal used is a Canadian high sulfur bituminous coal. The mass fraction of oxygen in the combustion air was varied from 21% (air) to 100% (pure oxygen). The results show that the temperatures of the gas phase and coal particles increase, respectively, by 13% and 9% when the mass fraction of oxygen is increased from 21% to 100%. One important result is that the CO2 in the oxygen/coal exhaust stream is at a much higher concentration (50% higher) compared with the air and coal exhaust stream highly diluted by N2. This will help the capture of CO2 emissions from flue gas and consequently reduce the CO2 capture costs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoal Properties and UtilizationFrench-language works237,207